欢迎访问作物学报，今天是
作物学报

作物学报 ›› 2011, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (07): 1308-1312.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2011.01308

• 研究简报 • 上一篇    

高粱bmr-6和bmr-12基因对产量和品质性状的效应比较

王丽华,李杰勤,林平,王培,由振文,詹秋文*   

  1. 安徽科技学院植物科学学院，安徽凤阳 233100
  • 收稿日期:2010-12-23 修回日期:2011-03-26 出版日期:2011-07-12 网络出版日期:2011-05-11
  • 通讯作者: 詹秋文, E-mail: qwzhan@163.com, Tel: 0550-6719202
  • 基金资助:

    本研究由安徽科技学院青年基金(ZRC2011280)，安徽高等学校省级自然科学研究项目(KJ2011Z075)，国家自然科学基金项目(31071470)，安徽省“115”产业创新团队(皖人才办[2009]2号)和安徽科技学院稳定人才专项(ZRC2009236)资助。

Comparison of Effects of Sorghum bmr-6 and bmr-12 Genes on Yield and Quality Traits

WANG Li-Hua,LI Jie-Qin,LIN Ping,WANG Pei,YOU Zhen-Wen,ZHAN Qiu-Wen*   

  1. College of Plant Science and Technology, Anhui Science and Technology University, Fengyang 233100, China
  • Received:2010-12-23 Revised:2011-03-26 Published:2011-07-12 Published online:2011-05-11
  • Contact: 詹秋文, E-mail: qwzhan@163.com, Tel: 0550-6719202

PDF

1231

被引次数

4

摘要： 比较了在Atlas、Early Hegari-Sart、Kansas Collier、Rox Orange和Wheatland 5种高粱遗传背景下，bmr-6和bmr-12基因对产量性状及品质性状的影响。结果表明，bmr-6和bmr-12基因使株高显著降低，同时增加了植株的茎粗；而对分蘖数和叶片数的影响较小。bmr-6和bmr-12对产量性状是负面影响，但在不同的遗传背景下不一致。对于品质性状，bmr-6一般是使中性洗涤纤维和酸性洗涤纤维降低，而bmr-12则对这两者影响不大。bmr-6和bmr-12都使酸性洗涤木质素和酸不溶灰分降低。综合考虑，bmr-12的育种利用价值比bmr-6大。

关键词: 高粱, bmr-6, bmr-12, 产量性状, 品质性状

Abstract: This research aimed to compare the impact of bmr-6 and bmr-12 on yield and quality traits in five sorghum genetic backgrounds: Atlas, Early Hegari-Sart, Kansas Collier, Rox Orange and Wheatland. The results showed that bmr-6 and bmr-12 generally made a shorter plant height and bigger stem diameter. However, bmr-6 and bmr-12 had little effects on tiller number and leaf number.Bmr-6 and bmr-12 had negative effects on yield traits, but the effects were different in different genetic backgrounds. As for the quality traits, bmr-6 generally decreased the contents of NDF (Neutral Detergent Fiber) and ADF (Acid Detergent Fiber) and bmr-12 had no impact on the two traits. Both bmr-6 and bmr-12 decreased the contents of ADL (Acid Detergent Lignin) and ADF (Acid Detergent Lignin) in the five genetic backgrounds. Considering all factors, bmr-12 is more useful in breeding than bmr-6.

Key words: Sorghum, bmr-6, bmr-12, Yield traits, Quality traits

[1]Lu Q-S(卢庆善). Sorghum (高粱学). Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 1999, pp 1–24
[2]Cherney J H, Cherney D J R, Akin D E, Axtell J D. Potential of brown-midrib, low-lignin mutants for improving forage quality. Adv Agron, 1991, 46: 157–198
[3]Barriere Y, Ralph J, Mechin V, Guillaumie S, Grabber J H, Argillier O, Chabbert B, Lapierre C. Genetic and molecular basis of grass cell wall biosynthesis and degradability: II. Lessons from brown-midrib mutants. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 2004, 327: 847–860
[4]Porter K S, Axtell J D, Lechtenberg V L, Colenbrander V F. Phenotype, fiber composition, and in vitro dry matter disappearance of chemically induced brown midrib (bmr) mutants of sorghum. Crop Sci, 1978, 18: 205–209
[5]Bittinger T S, Cantrell R P, Axtell J D. Allelism tests of the brown-midrib mutants of sorghum. J Hered, 1981, 72: 147–148
[6]Casler M D, Pedersen J F, Undersander D J. Forage yield and economic losses associated with the brown-midrib trait in Sudangrass. Crop Sci, 2003, 43: 782–789
[7]Zhang L-Y(张丽英). Analysis and Quality Detection Technology of Feed (饲料分析及饲料质量检测技术), 3rd edn. Beijing: China Agricultural University Press, 2007
[8]Neuffer M G, Jones L, Zuber M S. The Mutants of Maize. Matthias S, Hamilton H, eds. Madison, WI: Crop Science Society of America, 1968
[9]Lee M H, Brewbaker L L. Effects of brown midrib on yields and yield components of maize. Crop Sci, 1984, 24: 105–108
[10]Oliver A L, Pedersen J F, Grant R J, Klopfenstein T J. Comparative effects of the Sorghum bmr-6 and bmr-12 genes: I. Forage sorghum yield and quality. Crop Sci, 2005, 45: 2234–2239
[11]Pedersen J F, Vogel K P, Funnell D L. Impact of reduced lignin on plant fitness. Crop Sci, 45: 812–819
[12]Casler M D, Pedersen J F, Undersander D J. Forage yield and economic losses associated with the brown-midrib trait in Sudangrass. Crop Sci, 2003, 43: 782–789
[13]Khurana A D, Verma A N. Some biochemical plant characters in relation to susceptibility of sorghum to stemborer and shootfly. Indian J Entomol, 1983, 45: 29–37
[14]Moussa M D, Hill N S, Wiseman B R, Isenhour D J. Panicle-stage resistance to Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in converted sorghum accessions. J Econ Entomol, 1991, 84: 337–344
[1] 刘嘉欣, 兰玉, 徐倩玉, 李红叶, 周新宇, 赵璇, 甘毅, 刘宏波, 郑月萍, 詹仪花, 张刚, 郑志富. 耐三唑并嘧啶类除草剂花生种质创制与鉴定[J]. 作物学报, 2022, 48(4): 1027-1034.
[2] 王媛, 王劲松, 董二伟, 武爱莲, 焦晓燕. 长期施用不同剂量氮肥对高粱产量、氮素利用特性和土壤硝态氮含量的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(2): 342-350.
[3] 刘少荣, 杨扬, 田红丽, 易红梅, 王璐, 康定明, 范亚明, 任洁, 江彬, 葛建镕, 成广雷, 王凤格. 基于农艺及品质性状与SSR标记的青贮玉米品种遗传多样性分析[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(12): 2362-2370.
[4] 董二伟, 王劲松, 武爱莲, 王媛, 王立革, 韩雄, 郭珺, 焦晓燕. 行距和密度对高粱籽粒灌浆、淀粉及氮磷钾累积特征的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2021, 47(12): 2459-2470.
[5] 张瑞栋,肖梦颖,徐晓雪,姜冰,邢艺凡,陈小飞,李邦,艾雪莹,周宇飞,黄瑞冬. 高粱种子对萌发温度的响应分析与耐低温萌发能力鉴定[J]. 作物学报, 2020, 46(6): 889-901.
[6] 宝力格,陆平,史梦莎,许月,刘敏轩. 中国高粱地方种质芽期苗期耐盐性筛选及鉴定[J]. 作物学报, 2020, 46(5): 734-744.
[7] 解松峰,吉万全,张耀元,张俊杰,胡卫国,李俊,王长有,张宏,陈春环. 小麦重要产量性状的主基因+多基因混合遗传分析[J]. 作物学报, 2020, 46(3): 365-384.
[8] 马艳明, 冯智宇, 王威, 张胜军, 郭营, 倪中福, 刘杰. 新疆冬小麦品种农艺及产量性状遗传多样性分析[J]. 作物学报, 2020, 46(12): 1997-2007.
[9] 王瑞,凌亮,詹鹏杰,于纪珍,楚建强,平俊爱,张福耀. 控制高粱分蘖与主茎株高一致性的基因定位[J]. 作物学报, 2019, 45(6): 829-838.
[10] 闫超,郑剑,段文静,南文斌,秦小健,张汉马,梁永书. 越冬栽培稻产量性状相关QTL定位[J]. 作物学报, 2019, 45(4): 522-537.
[11] 赵佳佳,马小飞,郑兴卫,郝建宇,乔玲,葛川,王爱爱,张树伟,张晓军,姬虎太,郑军. 不同水分条件下HMW-GS对小麦品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2019, 45(11): 1682-1690.
[12] 张笑笑,潘映红,任富莉,蒲伟军,王道平,李玉斌,陆平,李桂英,朱莉. 基于多重表型分析的准确评价高粱抗旱性方法的建立[J]. 作物学报, 2019, 45(11): 1735-1745.
[13] 朱广龙,宋成钰,于林林,陈许兵,智文芳,刘家玮,焦秀荣,周桂生. 外源生长调节物质对甜高粱种子萌发过程中盐分胁迫的缓解效应及其生理机制[J]. 作物学报, 2018, 44(11): 1713-1724.
[14] 赵德辉, 张勇, 王德森, 黄玲, 陈新民, 肖永贵, 阎俊, 张艳, 何中虎. 北方冬麦区新育成优质品种的面包和馒头品质性状[J]. 作物学报, 2018, 44(05): 697-705.
[15] 邓梅, 何员江, 苟璐璐, 姚方杰, 李健, 张雪梅, 龙黎, 马建, 江千涛, 刘亚西, 魏育明, 陈国跃. 小麦骨干亲本繁6产量相关性状关键基因组区段的遗传效应[J]. 作物学报, 2018, 44(05): 706-715.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
京ICP备15008789号-2